This guy sounds just like a freakin NAZI who would not mind killin some Jews. Remember, the Nazis and the Arabs were all cool with teaming up and killing Jews back in WWII.

I’m just sayin…

Del Dolemonte on November 24, 2009 at 1:19 PM

Perfect. As a proud veteran of the USAF, I say perfect.

Not trying to start anything here, really, but what is up with these Jews who take up for Muslim terrorists? Anyone have any insight, I’d love to hear it.

Fenstermaker is no more a “weasel” than O’Reilly is for putting him on the air.

Kenosha Kid on November 23, 2009 at 10:31 PM

Yeah right, are you crazy?

The Air Farce fills no role the Army didn’t already fill, until politics came into play. The name one war the Air Farce has won.

Virus-X on November 24, 2009 at 12:03 PM

A case could be made that the Air Force won the Cold War. But that’s for another discussion.

You really don’t know the Mission of the Air Force, do you? It’s mainly defensive, not offensive. That means the Air Force is charged with protecting the air sovereignty of US airpsace, search and rescue, and airlift, which includes humanitarian missions. The Air Force mission also includes “irregular warfare”, which means “winning wars” is not their primary focus. In fact, the irregular warfare part of their mission didn’t come into being until the end of the Cold War.

You have to remember that we never started flying until just over 100 years ago. Are you saying we should go back to using Army mules on the ground exclusively?

I hate non lawyers like BOR who argue stupid points of law without a clue against expert guests . Armed only with a big mouth and microphone this type of person , who can not tell the difference between a loofah and a falafel , wants to demonstrate that in a country where ignorance of the law is no excuse , a profound and total ignorance proves the validity of his legal position .

borntoraisehogs on November 24, 2009 at 12:29 PM

cornfedbubba, it that you?

You’re just upset because this “lawyer” got pwned by O’Really.

All I can conclude is that you can’t defend what the lawyer said, so you’re attacking the guy who interviewed him. Saul Alinsky would approve, but it won’t get you very far on this forum.

One final question…were the people killed on 9/11 murdered, or not?

Free electoral advice to The One: Make sure the trial doesn’t start until you’re a lame duck.

I’m too lazy to trudge through 2+ pages of comments, so someone may have already pointed this out, but if the trials haven’t started by Fall of 2012 – not just discovery and jury selection, but actual arguments – the GOP can make an issue of Obama delaying justice for political convenience.

wildcat=ignoramus.

TTheoLogan on November 24, 2009 at 1:24 AM

TTheoLogan=lawyer

It’s taken them the better part of a decade, but they’re finally getting what they want: The world’s most elaborate, 24/7 beheading video.

Jim Treacher on November 24, 2009 at 5:27 AM

BING!

CPL 310 on November 24, 2009 at 5:28 AM

The Air Farce fills no role the Army didn’t already fill, until politics came into play. The name one war the Air Farce has won.

We’ve paid trillions to maintain them, their officer corps, their airmen, their schools, installations, etc., when the Army could’ve done it all. Roll them back into the Army, re-educate them, weed out the liberals, shut down their flight school, and expand the NAVY flight school, so they can become REAL pilots. Or CIVILIANS.

Despite that, as a human being, Fenstermaker (hereinafter Mr. F.) came across as a creep (more later) I think we have to defend him to an extent. He is the lawyer (even if he isn’t “on record”, it is clear that he will be acting as a legal advisor). Both Karl Rove and Rudi Giuliani, when denouncing the decision to try KSM in Federal Court, gave as one of their reasons that they would have defence lawyers ethically bound to do their best for their clients, including getting an acquittal. This is true. Mr. F. has a duty that is recognized by the prosecution (an interesting example of this is the article written awhile ago by Andy McCarthy about Lynn Stewart who he opposed during the Blind Sheik’s trial…even though they had serious disagreements about many things, he respected her for doing her duty as a trial lawyer…this was prior to her smuggling messages).

So, for example, in response to Blake’s comment above, that Adams defended the British soldiers because no one else would, whereas Mr. F. doesn’t have to defend KSM et.al., any defence lawyer is going to come in for the same criticism if they pursue the defence aggressively (which is their duty).

To make it worse, President Obama virtually convicted and sentenced Mr. F’s client to death in his widely publicized interview from China last week. Obviously, Mr. F., and the other lawyers on the team have no choice but to try to do something to offset this widely publicized tainting of the jury (even if he’s smart, Pres. Obama was an idiot for saying this so publically). Least of all can he admit, on the most widely watched cable news show, that what his client did was a murder (a lawyer’s admissions bind the client…if you were the lawyer would you like to try an exclude the admission by trying to explain that”But but but your honour, I wasn’t officially on the record…” or would you prefer to just not make the admission? I think the answer is pretty obvious).

A commentator above (MB4), in my opinion, nailed it. There is a “scum sucking lawyer here but it’s not this guy”. There are actually two…Holder and Obama. Their sophistry cannot hide the fact that KSM, and others, was prepared to plead guilty at a Military Tribunal. Even if they weren’t, the Military Commissions as presently constituted,pass constitutional muster. Their intellectual dishonesty is exposed by a question I saw posed somewhere (may on Hot Air?) last week…if these guys are criminals and not enemy combatants, how do we justify killing them silently from the air with drones, sometimes in their sleep?

Of course these are not mere criminals and of course they are not entitled to civilian justice. There is no reason in the world, apart from political revenge against Bush/Cheney/Rove et al to try this case in Federal Court. They say that the trial will show the greatness of the American judicial system. Really? They also say that, even if a conviction is not won, the accused will never go free…how does that showcase the fairness of the legal system? (Does anyone remember the movie “Judgement at Nuremburg”? One of the striking scenes, based on reality, was of people being acquitted in Nazi Courts, and being arrested and probably executed upon their exit from the courtroom…people will make this comparison, unjustifiably because the US has a great system, because Obama and Holder have exposed it to such attack).

Mr. F. is probably scummy. He seems to relish the case, poking fun at the deaths of the 2800 people (why else joke about the 200 not killed?)and, as Blake noted, looks as though he sought out the case. The prosecutors don’t like him, though that can often be to a defence lawyer’s credit (I am sure the Durham DA in the Duke rape case didn’t like those defence lawyers very much either). Still, he may be ethically challenged, though it doesn’t seem that he has been disciplined by any bar association.

In Canada, where I practiced, there are ethical prohibitions against trying cases in the media and so we are often amazed at the way our American cousins work the media in their cases. Nonetheless, given the publicity created by the President and the Attorney general about the certainty of conviction and punishment, some media stuff is probably neccessary.

In the end, this is a horrible situation, and it is the exclusive responsibility of Obama and Holder who, in order to grind political axes, have exposed the victims to pain, the defenders of the country to attack and the country to embarrassment.

But, once the case was put into the civilian system, no matter how wrongly and perversely, the defence lawyers will have to defend. Aggressively. As Messrs. Rove and Giuliani said, it’s their duty.

If only the President and the Attorney General would do theirs.

One other quick point, smellthecoffee et al…who the hell cares if Mr. F. is Jewish? What difference does THAT make?

Sorry for the length of this post.

The USAAC, is a major reason that the Germans lost WWII . Control of the air. Ask any grunt that has been in a real fight, how happy they are when they get cover from the air.

I don’t know what you think a “…real fight…” is. Rangers in Operation Anaconda fought at high altitudes with neither helicopter nor jet fighter support and won. Sure, they wanted it, but didn’t get it. Regardless; send me Marine or Navy pilots, any day.

In that situation how can they be convicted? This is on of the biggest effups I have ever seen.